{"id":"court_ctb_2631_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2631,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":null,"title":"B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15) | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse)","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"#### **B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse) | | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NUMBER
(Court Use Only) | | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| PLAINTIFFS | DEFENDANTS | | | |\n| Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee | Mei Guo | | | |\n| ATTORNEYS (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone No.) | ATTORNEYS | (If Known) | | |\n| Douglas S. Skalka, Patrick R. Linsey
Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.
195 Church St. 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510
(203)781-2847 | | | | |\n| PARTY (Check One Box Only) | | PARTY (Check One Box Only) | | |\n| □ Debtor
□ U.S.
Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin | □ Debtor | □ U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy
Admin | | |\n| □ Creditor
□ Other | □ Creditor | □ Other | | |\n| □ Trustee | □ Trustee | | | |\n| CAUSE OF ACTION
(WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION, INCLUDING ALL U.S. STATUTES INVOLVED) | | | | |\n| Complaint of Chapter 11 Trustee seeking avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers and postpetition transfers
and related relief pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 544,548,549, and 550 and New York Debtor and Creditor
Law Sections 273, 274, and 276 | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| NATURE OF SUIT
(Number up to five (5) boxes starting with lead cause of action as 1, first alternative cause as 2, second alternative cause as 3, etc.) | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(1) – Recovery of Money/Property | | FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability (continued) | | |\n| □
11-Recovery of money/property - §542 turnover of property | | □
61-Dischargeability - §523(a)(5), domestic support | | |\n| □
12-Recovery of money/property - §547 preference | | □
68-Dischargeability - §523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury | | |\n| □
13-Recovery of money/property - §548 fraudulent transfer | □
63-Dischargeability - §523(a)(8), student loan | | | |\n| □
14-Recovery of money/property - other | □ | 64-Dischargeability - §523(a)(15), divorce or separation obligation | | |\n| FRBP 7001(2) – Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien | □ | (other than domestic support) | | |\n| □
21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property | | 65-Dischargeability - other | | |\n| | | FRBP 7001(7) – Injunctive Relief | | |\n| FRBP 7001(3) – Approval of Sale of Property | □ | 71-Injunctive relief – imposition of stay | | |\n| □
31-Approval of sale of property of estate and of a co-owner - §363(h) | □ | 72-Injunctive relief – other | | |\n| FRBP 7001(4) – Objection/Revocation of Discharge | | | | |\n| □
41-Objection / revocation of discharge - §727(c),(d),(e) | □ | FRBP 7001(8) Subordination of Claim or Interest | | |\n| | | 81-Subordination of claim or interest | | |\n| FRBP 7001(5) – Revocation of Confirmation
□ | | FRBP 7001(9) Declaratory Judgment | | |\n| 51-Revocation of confirmation | □ | 91-Declaratory judgment | | |\n| FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability | | | | |\n| □
66-Dischargeability - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) priority tax claims | □ | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action
01-Determination of removed claim or cause | | |\n| □
62-Dischargeability - §523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, | | | | |\n| actual fraud | Other | | | |\n| □
67-Dischargeability - §523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny | □ | SS-SIPA Case – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq. | | |\n| (continued next column) | □ | 02-Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court | | |\n| | | if unrelated to bankruptcy case) | | |\n| □ Check if this case involves a substantive issue of state law | | □ Check if this is asserted to be a class action under FRCP 23 | | |\n| □ Check if a jury trial is demanded in complaint | Demand \\$ | | | |\n| Other Relief Sought | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n#### **B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| | | BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|---------------------------------------|--|--|\n| | 22-50073 (JAM) | | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH CASE IS PENDING | | NAME OF JUDGE | | |\n| | Bridgeport | Julie A. Manning | | |\n| Connecticut
RELATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDING (IF ANY) | | | | |\n| DEFENDANT | | ADVERSARY | | |\n| | | PROCEEDING NO. | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | | |\n| | | | | |\n| SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF) | | | | |\n| /s/ Patrick R. Linsey | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| DATE | | PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF) | | |\n| | | | | |\n| February 10, 2024 | | Patrick R. Linsey | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n#### **INSTRUCTIONS**\n\nThe filing of a bankruptcy case creates an \"estate\" under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court which consists of all of the property of the debtor, wherever that property is located. Because the bankruptcy estate is so extensive and the jurisdiction of the court so broad, there may be lawsuits over the property or property rights of the estate. There also may be lawsuits concerning the debtor's discharge. If such a lawsuit is filed in a bankruptcy court, it is called an adversary proceeding.\n\nA party filing an adversary proceeding must also must complete and file Form 1040, the Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet, unless the party files the adversary proceeding electronically through the court's Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system (CM/ECF). (CM/ECF captures the information on Form 1040 as part of the filing process.) When completed, the cover sheet summarizes basic information on the adversary proceeding. The clerk of court needs the information to process the adversary proceeding and prepare required statistical reports on court activity.\n\nThe cover sheet and the information contained on it do not replace or supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, the Bankruptcy Rules, or the local rules of court. The cover sheet, which is largely selfexplanatory, must be completed by the plaintiff's attorney (or by the plaintiff if the plaintiff is not represented by an attorney). A separate cover sheet must be submitted to the clerk for each complaint filed.\n\n**Plaintiffs** and **Defendants.** Give the names of the plaintiffs and defendants exactly as they appear on the complaint.\n\n**Attorneys.** Give the names and addresses of the attorneys, if known.\n\n**Party**. Check the most appropriate box in the first column for the plaintiffs and the second column for the defendants.\n\n**Demand.** Enter the dollar amount being demanded in the complaint.\n\n**Signature.** This cover sheet must be signed by the attorney of record in the box on the second page of the form. If the plaintiff is represented by a law firm, a member of the firm must sign. If the plaintiff is pro se, that is, not represented by an attorney, the plaintiff must sign.\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | | x |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|------------------------------|\n| In re: | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| 1
HO WAN KWOK,
et al., | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | :
Debtors.
:
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------
LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11
TRUSTEE,
v. | :
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
: | x
Adv. Proceeding No. [ ] |\n| MEI GUO, | :
: | February 10, 2024 |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | :
Defendant.
:
: | x |\n\n# **COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE SEEKING AVOIDANCE AND RECOVERY OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS AND POSTPETITION TRANSFERS AND RELATED RELIEF PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 544, 548, 549, AND 550 AND NEW YORK DEBTOR & CREDITOR LAW SECTIONS 273, 274, AND 276**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the\n\nchapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\" or \"Kwok\"), files this\n\n1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\nadversary complaint (the \"Complaint\") against defendant Mei Guo (the \"Defendant\"), stating as follows:\n\n#### **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. The Trustee commences this adversary proceeding to avoid and recover: (a) transfers of the Debtor's property prior to the commencement of this Chapter 11 Case; and (b) transfers of property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate after the commencement of this Chapter 11 Case and not authorized by the Bankruptcy Court or under Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\").\n\n2. The Debtor, through his alter-ego shell companies, Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp Capital\"), G Club Operations LLC (\"GClub\"), Golden Spring (New York) Ltd (\"Golden Spring\"), Hudson Diamond NY LLC (\"Hudson Diamond\") and/or Lexington Property and Staffing Inc. (\"Lexington Property\"), transferred funds in the amount of \\$1,800,00.00 prior to the Petition Date (as defined herein) to the Defendant as initial transferee.\n\n3. These transfers were actually fraudulent, because the Debtor effectuated them as part of his \"shell game,\" and they were made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors. Alternatively, these transfers were constructively fraudulent, because they were made when the Debtor was insolvent, and the Debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value in consideration thereof.\n\n4. Following the Petition Date, the Debtor, through his alter-ego shell companies, Lamp Capital, GClub, Golden Spring, Hudson Diamond and/or Lexington Property, transferred funds in the aggregate amount of \\$350,000.00 to the Defendant as initial transferee.\n\n2\n\n5. Because these postpetition transfers of estate property were not authorized by the Court or under the Bankruptcy Code, they are subject to avoidance and recovery under sections 549 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n## **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).\n\n7. This adversary proceeding has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).\n\n8. The statutory predicates for the relief sought herein include sections 544, 548, 549, and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code and New York Debtor & Creditor Law sections 273, 274, and 276 2 or any other applicable state law equivalents.\n\n# **THE PARTIES**\n\n9. The Trustee is the chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court's order entered on July 8, 2022 [Case No. 22-50073 (the \"Main Case\") Docket No. 523].\n\n10. The Defendant is an individual with an address at 492 Broome St, Apt 3, New York, New York 10013.\n\n11. The Defendant is the Debtor's daughter.\n\n2 All statutory references to New York Debtor and Creditor Law will hereinafter be referred to as \"N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law\". The New York Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (\"NYUVT\") replaced the New York Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act (\"NYUFC\") and became effective on April 4, 2020 and applies to transfers made or obligations incurred on or after April 4, 2020.\n\n#### **FACTS**\n\n## **A. Chapter 11 Case**\n\n12. The Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Bankruptcy Court\"), thus commencing the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n13. On March 21, 2022, the Office of the United States Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in this Chapter 11 Case. No examiner has been appointed.\n\n14. The Debtor's bankruptcy schedules, filed in March 2022 with the Bankruptcy Court, claimed that he owned \\$3,850 in assets and had incurred hundreds of millions of dollars of liabilities.3 While the Debtor was, indeed, deeply indebted, his schedules failed to disclose the Debtor's property as held and/or transferred through his many alter-ego shell companies, including Lamp Capital, GClub, Golden Spring, Hudson Diamond and Lexington Property.\n\n15. On June 15, 2022, the Court entered a memorandum of decision and order [Main Case Docket No. 465] directing the United States Trustee to appoint a chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case. Pursuant to this order, the United States Trustee selected Luc A. Despins as the Trustee. On July 8, 2022, the Court entered an order granting the appointment of Luc A. Despins as the Trustee in the Chapter 11 Case [Main Case Docket No. 523].\n\n### **B. Debtor's Use of Shell Companies and Trustee's Adversary Proceedings**\n\n16. Lamp Capital, GClub, Golden Spring, Hudson Diamond and/or Lexington Property are among the numerous alter-ego shell companies used by the Debtor to hinder, delay, and/or\n\n3 Schedule of Assets and Liabilities, at 1 [Main Case Docket No. 78].\n\ndefraud his creditors.4 For years, the Debtor has orchestrated a \"shell game,\" employing a convoluted web of shell companies, nominally owned by family members, lieutenants, and/or subordinates, but in reality, controlled by the Debtor. This shell game enabled the Debtor to use and spend and/or transfer millions of dollars of cash and other assets—while concealing his property from creditors.\n\n17. Since his appointment, the Trustee has commenced a number of adversary proceedings in the Chapter 11 Case to, among other things, establish that the Debtor's shell companies were his alter-egos and/or that such companies and their assets were equitably owned by the Debtor and in several the Bankruptcy Court has already granted such relief.5\n\nThe Trustee has commenced an adversary proceeding against Hudson Diamond, which adversary proceeding seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment that Hudson Diamond was the alter ego of the Debtor. *See Despins v. Lamp Capital LLC, et al.* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5023 (the \"Lamp Capital A.P.\")). The Trustee incorporates by reference herein, the Trustee's Complaint filed in the Lamp Capital A.P. (Adv. Proc. No. 23- 5023, Docket No. 1).\n\nThe Trustee has or will imminently commence an adversary proceeding against GClub, which adversary proceeding seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment that GClub was the alter ego of the Debtor. The Trustee incorporates by reference herein, the Trustee's Complaint filed in such adversary proceeding.\n\n4 The Court has entered judgment to the effect that Lamp Capital was the Debtor's alter ego. *See Despins v. Lamp Capital LLC, et al.* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5023 (the \"Lamp Capital A.P.\"), Docket No. 66). The Trustee incorporates by reference herein, the Trustee's Complaint filed in the Lamp Capital A.P. (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5023, Docket No. 1).\n\nThe Court has entered judgment to the effect that Golden Spring was the Debtor's alter ego. *See Despins v. Greenwich Land, LLC* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5018 (the \"Greenwich Land A.P.\"), Docket No. 35). The Trustee incorporates by reference herein, the Trustee's Complaint filed in the Greenwich Land A.P. (Adv. Proc. No. 23- 5018, Docket No. 1).\n\nDefault has entered against Lexington in the adversary proceeding *Despins v. HCHK Technologies, Inc., et. al.* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5013 (the \"HCHK Entities A.P.\"), Docket No. 139), which adversary proceeding seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment that Lexington was the alter ego[s] of the Debtor. The Trustee incorporates by reference herein, the Trustee's Complaint filed in the HCHK Entities A.P. (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5013, Docket No. 1).\n\n5 These include the following adversary proceedings: (i) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003]; (ii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Greenwich Land LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005]; (iii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Mei Guo [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008]; (iv) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HCHK Technologies, Inc., et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013]; (v) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Taurus Fund LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017]; (vi) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Golden Spring (New York) Limited [Adv. Proc. 23- 05018]; and (vii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Lamp Capital LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. 23-05023].\n\n18. The fact patterns in these litigations consistently involve: (i) Debtor-controlled shell companies held by close family members and/or subordinates, (ii) assets purchased with cash from other Debtor-controlled entities and/or transferred to and among shell entities for no consideration, and (iii) the Debtor benefiting from and having control and dominion over such assets.\n\n#### **C. Debtor's Conduct to Hinder, Delay, and/or Defraud Creditors**\n\n19. In addition to the matters addressed in the Trustee's adversary proceedings, the Bankruptcy Court has found that the Debtor was the beneficial owner of Ace Decade Limited (and through it, Dawn State Limited) and that the Debtor controlled and employed Ace Decade Limited's nominee shareholder, Yvette Wang.6\n\n20. The Bankruptcy Court has also found that the \"G Entities\" (Gettr, G Fashion, G Music, GClubs, GNews and GEdu), the New Federal State of China and the Rule of Law Foundation, as well as other purportedly independent entities and organizations, were controlled by the Debtor7 , led by the Debtor8 and/or served \"the purposes of… and as business vehicles of\" the Debtor.9\n\n21. Prior to the Petition Date, Judge Liman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found that Eastern Profit Corporation Limited, an entity originally\n\n6 Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order, ¶¶ 1, 4 (Jan. 24, 2023, Docket No. 1372 (\"Corp. Governance Contempt Order\").\n\n7 *Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction*, ¶ 3 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, January 13, 2023 (\"The Debtor also controls Saraca Media Group and a related entity 'GTV'\").\n\n8 *Id*. at ¶ 7 (\"The Debtor is the leader of The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF and Himalaya.\").\n\n9 *Id*. (\"The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, GSeries, and Himalaya serve the purposes of the Debtor, serve as business vehicles for the Debtor, and their members are personally loyal to the Debtor.\").\n\nowned by one of the Debtor's chefs before its transfer to the Defendant, who is the Debtor's daughter, was \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for the Debtor.10\n\n22. The Debtor has gone to great lengths to hinder and delay the collection efforts of one of his largest creditors, *i.e.*, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. (\"PAX\"). In 2017, PAX sued the Debtor in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the \"New York Court\"), Index No. 652077/2017 (the \"PAX Case\"), seeking judgment for monies owed. On February 3, 2021, PAX obtained a judgment from the New York Court against the Debtor in the sum of \\$116,402,019.57 (the \"PAX Judgment\"). PAX sought to enforce the PAX Judgment by levying the Debtor's assets—including the Lady May, which the Debtor falsely claimed was owned by the Defendant, who is his daughter, and the Debtor's luxury apartment in Manhattan, which the Debtor falsely claimed was held in trust for the Debtor's son. The Debtor's defiance of New York Court orders in post-judgment proceedings eventually resulted in the Debtor incurring contempt penalties of \\$134 million.\n\n23. The Debtor also used his alter egos, Lamp Capital, GClub, Golden Spring, Hudson Diamond and Lexington Property, as personal piggy-banks, funding the lavish lifestyle to which he and his family had become accustomed, while concealing assets in these alter egos from his creditors and hindering and delaying creditors from recoveries on their claims. The transfers that the Debtor effectuated through these alter egos perpetuated the Debtor's fraudulent scheme.\n\n10 *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021).\n\n24. The Debtor has testified before the Bankruptcy Court that he has insufficient assets to pay his liabilities and that his luxurious lifestyle is funded by his family through businesses nominally held by family members.11 The Debtor scheduled only \\$3,850 in assets.12\n\n25. In March 2023, the Debtor was arrested and remains confined pending his trial on federal criminal charges of, among other things, wire fraud, securities fraud, and money laundering.\n\n26. In its criminal indictment of the Debtor, the United States Government asserts that the Debtor and his co-defendants \"utilized more than approximately 500 accounts held in the names of *at least 80 different entities or individuals* to launder more than \\$1 billion in fraud proceeds.\"13\n\n27. The property of the Debtor's alter egos, including Lamp Capital, GClub, Golden Spring, Hudson Diamond and Lexington Property, was at all times prior to the Petition Date property of the Debtor.\n\n28. At all times relevant herein, the Debtor conducted business in New York, New York, including direction of the prepetition transfers at issue in this Complaint.\n\n11 Hearing on Debtor's Motion for Entry of Interim and Final DIP Orders (I) Authorizing the Debtor to Obtain Unsecured, Subordinated Postpetition Financing and (II) Scheduling Interim and Final Hearings, and (III) Granting Related Relief (Main Case, April 27, 2022)\n\n12 *See* n.3\n\n13 *See* Memorandum of Law of the United States of America in Opposition to Defendant Yanping Wang's Motion for Pretrial Release at 29, attached as Exhibit B in the Reply of Chapter 11 Trustee to G Club Operations LLC's Supplemental Objection to Trustee's Motion to Compel and Request for Related Relief (June 23, 2023, Main Case Docket No. 1934).\n\n## **D. Debtor's Shell Game and Fraud Continues Postpetition**\n\n29. As of the Petition Date, all of the Debtor's property held through his alter egos, including Lamp Capital, GClub, Golden Spring, Hudson Diamond and Lexington Property, became property of the chapter 11 estate. *See* 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1).\n\n30. Following the Petition Date, the Debtor, with blatant disregard for the Bankruptcy Court and his obligations under the Bankruptcy Code, continued to effectuate transfers through numerous alter-ego shell companies, including, without limitation, Lamp Capital, GClub, Golden Spring, Hudson Diamond and Lexington Property.\n\n31. None of these postpetition transfers were authorized by the Bankruptcy Court nor were such transfers authorized under the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n### **E. Transfers Made with Intent to Hinder, Delay, or Defraud Creditors**\n\n32. The transfers at issue in this Complaint were made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors inasmuch as they were all made through the Debtor's alterego shell companies operated as a part of the Debtor's shell game.\n\n33. The Debtor intentionally orchestrated his financial affairs in this manner in order to conceal and dissipate millions of dollars in assets while falsely pleading poverty to his many creditors. The Debtor claimed to be destitute while simultaneously spending heavily to maintain a billionaire lifestyle for himself and for his family members and close associates.\n\n34. The assets concealed and dissipated by the Debtor included funds that he obtained from the victims of his cryptocurrency, securities, and other fraud schemes. As a result of this conduct, the Debtor faces multiple felony fraud, money laundering, and racketeering charges in a criminal case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. *See United States v. Ho Wan Kwok*, case no. 1:23-cr-00118-AT [ECF No. 215] (Jan. 3, 2024 S.D.N.Y.).\n\n35. The Debtor knew and intended that by concealing and dissipating his assets in this manner there would not be sufficient assets remaining to repay his creditors—including the many victims of his frauds. These transfers were thus necessarily made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors.\n\n36. The Defendant is an insider.\n\n37. The Defendant assisted the Debtor in carrying out his shell game, including, among other things, by serving as a nominal owner of shell companies that are the Debtor's alter egos and/or are beneficially owned by the Debtor (including those that held title to the Debtor's yacht and the Debtor's private jet) and by obstructing the efforts of creditors and the Trustee to investigate and pursue the Debtor's assets.\n\n38. The Defendant has benefited from her involvement in the Debtor's shell game, including, among other things, by obtaining the Transfers at issue in this Complaint, in consideration of which the Debtor received no value.\n\n#### **F. Transfers to the Defendant**\n\n39. Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtor, using his alter-ego shell companies, Lamp Capital, GClub, Golden Spring, Hudson Diamond and/or Lexington Property, or otherwise, transferred the Debtor's property to the Defendant (collectively, the \"Prepetition Transfers\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\nSee **SCHEDULE A** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n40. Subsequent to the Petition Date, the Debtor, through his shell companies, Lamp Capital, GClub, Golden Spring, Hudson Diamond and/or Lexington Property, or otherwise, transferred property of the estate to the Defendant (collectively, the \"Postpetition Transfers\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\n10\n\nSee **SCHEDULE B** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n41. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers and the Postpetition Transfers (collectively,\n\nthe \"Transfers\"), the Debtor had outstanding obligations to creditors of the Debtor's estate.\n\n42. The Defendant was the initial transferee of the Transfers.\n\n## **FIRST CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Actual Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 548(a)(1)(A) and 550(a))**\n\n43. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-42 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n44. The Prepetition Transfers14 were made by the Debtor through his alter egos, Lamp Capital, GClub, Golden Spring, Hudson Diamond and/or Lexington Property, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n45. The Debtor's intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors in effectuating the Prepetition Transfers is shown by, among other things:\n\na. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated using an alter-ego shell company;\n\nb. The Prepetition Transfers were concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n\nc. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated as part of the Debtor's \"shell game\" with the aid of the Debtor's family members and other lieutenants and subordinates that he controlled in an effort to conceal and shield assets;\n\n14 The First and Third Claim apply to Prepetition Transfers within two years prior to the Petition Date. The Second and Fourth Claim apply to all of the Prepetition Transfers.\n\nd. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to benefit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\ne. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to profit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\nf. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case; and\n\ng. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n46. The Prepetition Transfers are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to section 548(a)(i)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and are recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n## **SECOND CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Actual Fraudulent Transfers pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 274, and 276, and Bankruptcy Code sections 544(b) and 550(a))**\n\n47. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-42 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n48. The Prepetition Transfers were made by the Debtor, through his alter egos, Lamp Capital, GClub, Golden Spring, Hudson Diamond and/or Lexington Property, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n49. The Debtor's intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors in effectuating the Prepetition Transfers is shown by, among other things:\n\na. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated using an alter-ego shell company;\n\nb. The Prepetition Transfers were concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n\nc. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated as part of the Debtor's \"shell game\" with the aid of the Debtor's family members and other lieutenants and subordinates that he controlled in an effort to conceal and shield assets;\n\nd. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to benefit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\ne. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to profit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\nf. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case; and\n\ng. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n50. The Prepetition Transfers are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1), 274, and 276, and section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n## **THIRD CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Constructive Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 548(a)(1)(B) and 550(a))**\n\n51. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-42 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n52. The Debtor received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the Prepetition Transfers.\n\n53. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or became insolvent as a result of the Prepetition Transfers.\n\n54. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was engaged in a business or transaction, or was about to engage in a business or transaction, for which any property remaining with the Debtor was an unreasonably small amount of capital.\n\n55. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor intended to incur or believed he would incur, debts that would be beyond his ability to pay as such debts matured.\n\n56. The Prepetition Transfers constitute fraudulent transfers and are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code and are recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n#### **FOURTH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Constructive Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2), 274 and 276 and Bankruptcy Code sections 544(b) and 550(a))**\n\n57. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-42 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n58. The Debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the Prepetition Transfers.\n\n59. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or the Debtor became insolvent as a result of the Prepetition Transfers.\n\n60. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was engaged in a business or transaction, or was about to engage in a business or transaction which any property remaining with the Debtor was an unreasonably small amount of capital.\n\n14\n\n61. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he would incur, debts that would be beyond his ability to pay as such debt matured.\n\n62. The Prepetition Transfers are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2), 274 and 276 and section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and are recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n## **FIFTH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Unauthorized Postpetition Transfers pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 549 and 550(a))**\n\n63. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-42 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n64. The Postpetition Transfers were made to the Defendant by the Debtor, including through his alter-ego shell companies, Lamp Capital, GClub, Golden Spring, Hudson Diamond and/or Lexington Property.\n\n65. The Postpetition Transfers occurred after the Petition Date.\n\n66. The Postpetition Transfers were not authorized by the Bankruptcy Court or by the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n67. The Postpetition Transfers constituted the unauthorized transfer of property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate.\n\n68. The Postpetition Transfers are avoidable pursuant to section 549(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n69. Pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Trustee is entitled to recover the Postpetition Transfers, or the value thereof, from the Defendant plus interest thereon to the date of payment and the costs of this action.\n\n#### **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests that judgment be entered as follows:\n\n1. On the First Claim, an order declaring that the Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$1,800,000.00 are avoided pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code; (b) an order directing that the Prepetition Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Prepetition Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n2. On the Second Claim, an order declaring that the Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$1,800,000.00 are avoided pursuant to N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1), 274, and 276 and, with respect to transfers prior to April 4, 2020, N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 273a, 275, 276 and 278; (b) an order directing that the Prepetition Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Prepetition Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law section 276 and section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n3. On the Third Claim, (a) an order declaring that the Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$1,800,000.00 are avoided pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code; (b) an order directing that the Prepetition Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Prepetition Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n4. On the Fourth Claim, an order declaring that (a) the Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$1,800,000.00 are avoided pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2), 274 and 276 and, with respect to transfers prior to April 4, 2020, N.Y. Debt. & Cred.\n\n16\n\nLaw sections 273, 273a, 275, 276 and 278; (b) an order directing that the Prepetition Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Prepetition Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law section 276 and section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n5. On the Fifth Claim, an order (a) declaring that the Postpetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$350,000.00 are avoided pursuant to section 549 of the Bankruptcy Code; and (b) an order directing that the Postpetition Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Postpetition Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n6. Awarding the Trustee pre-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate from the date of the filings of this Complaint to the date of judgment herein; and\n\n7. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, or equitable under the circumstances.\n\n## [*Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank*]\n\nDated: February 10, 2024 New Haven, CT\n\nLUC A. DESPINS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: /s/ *Patrick R. Linsey\\_\\_* Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com *Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n# **SCHEDULE A**\n\n# **FILED UNDER SEAL**\n\n# **SCHEDULE B**\n\n**FILED UNDER SEAL**","body_zh":"B1040（FORM 1040）（12/15）\n\n对抗诉讼封面页\n（背面说明） 对抗诉讼编号\n（仅供法院使用）\n\n原告 被告\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A.·德斯平斯），第11章受托人 Mei Guo（郭梅）\n律师（律师事务所名称、地址及电话号码） 律师 （如已知）\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S.·斯卡尔卡），Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R.·林赛）\nNeubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（诺伊伯特、佩佩及蒙泰思律师事务所）\n195 Church St. 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510\n(203)781-2847\n当事人（仅勾选一项） 当事人（仅勾选一项）\n□ 债务人\n□ 美国\n受托人/破产管理人 □ 债务人 □ 美国受托人/破产\n管理人\n□ 债权人\n□ 其他 □ 债权人 □ 其他\n□ 受托人 □ 受托人\n诉因\n（简要陈述诉因，包括所涉全部美国法条）\n第11章受托人提出的诉状，寻求撤销并追回欺诈性转让及申请破产后转让，\n并根据《破产法典》第544、548、549及550条以及《纽约州债务人与债权人\n法》第273、274及276条寻求相关救济\n\n诉讼性质\n（从主要诉因作为1开始编号，第一项备选诉因作为2，第二项备选诉因作为3，依此类推，最多填写五（5）项）\nFRBP 7001(1) – 追回金钱/财产 FRBP 7001(6) – 可否免除债务（续）\n□\n11-追回金钱/财产 - §542 财产返还 □\n61-可否免除债务 - §523(a)(5)，家庭扶养\n□\n12-追回金钱/财产 - §547 优先受偿 □\n68-可否免除债务 - §523(a)(6)，故意且恶意造成的损害\n□\n13-追回金钱/财产 - §548 欺诈性转让 □\n63-可否免除债务 - §523(a)(8)，学生贷款\n□\n14-追回金钱/财产 - 其他 □ 64-可否免除债务 - §523(a)(15)，离婚或分居义务\nFRBP 7001(2) – 留置权的有效性、优先权或范围 □ （家庭扶养义务除外）\n□\n21-留置权或其他财产权益的有效性、优先权或范围 65-可否免除债务 - 其他\nFRBP 7001(7) – 禁令性救济\nFRBP 7001(3) – 批准出售财产 □ 71-禁令性救济 – 施加中止\n□\n31-批准出售破产财产及共同所有人财产 - §363(h) □ 72-禁令性救济 – 其他\nFRBP 7001(4) – 对免除债务提出异议/撤销免除债务\n□\n41-对免除债务提出异议/撤销免除债务 - §727(c),(d),(e) □ FRBP 7001(8) 债权或权益的从属\n81-债权或权益的从属\nFRBP 7001(5) – 撤销确认\n□ FRBP 7001(9) 确认之诉\n51-撤销确认 □ 91-确认判决\nFRBP 7001(6) – 可否免除债务\n□\n66-可否免除债务 - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) 优先税收债权 □ FRBP 7001(10) 对移送诉讼的裁定\n01-对移送债权或诉因的裁定\n□\n62-可否免除债务 - §523(a)(2)，虚假借口、虚假陈述、\n实际欺诈 其他\n□\n67-可否免除债务 - §523(a)(4)，受托人欺诈、侵占、盗窃 □ SS-SIPA案件 – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.\n（续下栏） □ 02-其他（例如，如与破产案件无关本应在州法院提起的其他诉讼）\n□ 如本案涉及州法实体问题，请勾选 □ 如主张本案为根据FRCP 23提起的集体诉讼，请勾选\n□ 如诉状中要求陪审团审判，请勾选 请求金额 $\n寻求的其他救济\n\nB1040（FORM 1040）（12/15）\n\n破产案件编号\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n案件审理地区 法官姓名\nBridgeport（布里奇波特） Julie A. Manning（朱莉·A.·曼宁）\nConnecticut（康涅狄格州）\n相关对抗诉讼（如有）\n被告 对抗\n诉讼编号\n\n分院办事处 法官姓名\n\n律师（或原告）签名\n/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\n日期 律师（或原告）正楷姓名\n\nFebruary 10, 2024 Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R.·林赛）\n\n说明\n\n提交破产案件将在破产法院管辖下形成“破产财团”，该财团由债务人的全部财产构成，无论该等财产位于何处。由于破产财团范围广泛且法院管辖权广泛，可能就破产财团的财产或财产权利发生诉讼。也可能存在涉及债务人债务免除的诉讼。如该等诉讼在破产法院提起，则称为对抗诉讼。\n\n提起对抗诉讼的一方还必须填写并提交表格1040，即对抗诉讼封面页，除非该方通过法院的案件管理/电子案件提交系统（CM/ECF）以电子方式提交对抗诉讼。（CM/ECF在提交过程中获取表格1040中的信息。）填写完毕后，该封面页概述对抗诉讼的基本信息。法院书记员需要该等信息以处理对抗诉讼并编制所需的法院活动统计报告。\n\n封面页及其中所载信息不得替代或补充法律、《破产规则》或法院地方法规所要求的诉状或其他文件的提交和送达。该封面页大体上不言自明，必须由原告律师填写（如原告未由律师代理，则由原告填写）。每份提交的诉状均须向书记员单独提交一份封面页。\n\n原告和被告。应准确填写诉状中所列原告和被告的姓名。\n\n律师。应填写律师的姓名和地址（如已知）。\n\n当事人。为原告在第一栏勾选最适当的方框，并为被告在第二栏勾选最适当的方框。\n\n请求。填写诉状中请求的美元金额。\n\n签名。本封面页必须由登记在案的律师在表格第二页的方框中签署。如原告由律师事务所代理，该所的一名成员必须签署。如原告自行诉讼，即未由律师代理，则原告必须签署。\n\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格州地区 布里奇波特分院\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： ：\n： 第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等， ：\n： 案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n：\n： （合并管理）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A.·德斯平斯），第11章\n受托人，\n诉 ：\n：\n：\n：\n原告，\n：\n：\n： x\n对抗诉讼编号 [ ]\nMEI GUO（郭梅）， ：\n： February 10, 2024\n\n被告。\n：\n： x\n\n第11章受托人根据《破产法典》第544、548、549及550条以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第273、274及276条寻求撤销并追回欺诈性转让和申请破产后转让及相关救济的诉状\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A.·德斯平斯）以其作为在Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”或“Kwok”）的第11章案件（“第11章案件”）中获任命的第11章受托人（“受托人”）的身份，提出本\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称Guo Wengui、Miles Guo及Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码末四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码末四位：8202）及Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC及Genever Holdings Corporation的邮寄地址为Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转Luc A. Despins，作为Ho Wan Kwok破产财团的受托人（仅为通知及通信之目的）。\n\n针对被告Mei Guo（郭梅）（“被告”）的对抗诉讼诉状（“诉状”），陈述如下：\n\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提起本对抗诉讼，以撤销并追回：(a) 本第11章案件开始前对债务人财产作出的转让；及(b) 本第11章案件开始后对债务人第11章破产财团财产作出的、未经破产法院或《美国法典》第11编（“破产法典”）授权的转让。\n\n2. 债务人通过其作为另一个自我的空壳公司Lamp Capital LLC（“Lamp Capital”）、G Club Operations LLC（“GClub”）、Golden Spring (New York) Ltd（“Golden Spring”）、Hudson Diamond NY LLC（“Hudson Diamond”）及/或Lexington Property and Staffing Inc.（“Lexington Property”），在申请日（定义如下）之前向被告作为初始受让人转让了金额为$1,800,00.00的资金。\n\n3. 该等转让构成实际欺诈，因为债务人将其作为其“空壳把戏”的一部分实施，并且该等转让是出于阻碍、拖延及/或欺诈债务人债权人的意图而作出的。或者，该等转让构成推定欺诈，因为该等转让作出时债务人无力偿债，且债务人未因此获得合理等值的对价。\n\n4. 在申请日之后，债务人通过其作为另一个自我的空壳公司Lamp Capital、GClub、Golden Spring、Hudson Diamond及/或Lexington Property，向被告作为初始受让人转让了合计金额为$350,000.00的资金。\n\n5. 因为该等破产财团财产的申请破产后转让未经法院或《破产法典》授权，根据《破产法典》第549及550条，该等转让可予撤销并追回。\n\n管辖权及审判地\n\n6. 本院根据28 U.S.C. § 1334(b)对本对抗诉讼拥有事项管辖权。\n\n7. 本对抗诉讼已根据28 U.S.C. § 157(a)移交本院审理。\n\n8. 本文所请求救济的法定依据包括《破产法典》第544、548、549及550条，以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第273、274及276条2，或任何其他适用的州法等同规定。\n\n当事人\n\n9. 受托人系第11章案件中的第11章受托人，依据破产法院于July 8, 2022作出的命令[案件编号22-50073（“主案”）案卷编号523]任命。\n\n10. 被告为个人，地址为492 Broome St, Apt 3, New York, New York 10013。\n\n11. 被告是债务人的女儿。\n\n2 下文对《纽约州债务人与债权人法》的所有法条引用均称为“N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law”。《纽约州统一可撤销交易法》（“NYUVT”）取代《纽约州统一欺诈性转让法》（“NYUFC”），并于April 4, 2020生效，适用于在April 4, 2020当日或之后作出的转让或承担的义务。\n\n事实\n\nA. 第11章案件\n\n12. 债务人于February 15, 2022（“申请日”）在United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格州联邦破产法院）（“破产法院”）自愿提交根据《破产法典》第11章请求救济的申请，从而启动第11章案件。\n\n13. 于March 21, 2022，Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）在本第11章案件中任命了无担保债权人正式委员会。未任命审查员。\n\n14. 债务人于March 2022向破产法院提交的破产财产清单主张其拥有$3,850资产并承担数亿美元债务。3 尽管债务人确实负债累累，其财产清单未披露债务人通过其众多作为另一个自我的空壳公司持有及/或转让的财产，包括Lamp Capital、GClub、Golden Spring、Hudson Diamond及Lexington Property。\n\n15. 于June 15, 2022，法院作出决定备忘录及命令[主案件卷编号465]，指示美国受托人在第11章案件中任命第11章受托人。根据该命令，美国受托人选定Luc A. Despins（卢克·A.·德斯平斯）为受托人。于July 8, 2022，法院作出命令，批准任命Luc A. Despins为第11章案件的受托人[主案件卷编号523]。\n\nB. 债务人使用空壳公司及受托人的对抗诉讼\n\n16. Lamp Capital、GClub、Golden Spring、Hudson Diamond及/或Lexington Property是债务人为阻碍、拖延及/或使用的众多作为另一个自我的空壳公司之一\n\n3 资产和负债清单，第1页[主案件卷编号78]。\n\n欺诈其债权人。4 多年来，债务人一直精心策划一场“空壳游戏”，利用由家庭成员、亲信和／或下属名义持有、但实际上由债务人控制的错综复杂的空壳公司网络。这场空壳游戏使债务人得以使用、支出和／或转移数百万美元的现金及其他资产，同时向债权人隐瞒其财产。\n\n17. 自其获任以来，受托人已在第11章案件中提起多项对抗程序，除其他事项外，旨在确认债务人的空壳公司是其替身实体，和／或确认该等公司及其资产在衡平法上归债务人所有；在其中若干案件中，破产法院已准予该等救济。5\n\n受托人已对Hudson Diamond（哈德逊钻石）提起对抗程序；该对抗程序除其他事项外，请求作出确认Hudson Diamond系债务人替身实体的宣告性判决。见Despins v. Lamp Capital LLC（Lamp Capital有限责任公司）, et al. (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5023 (the \"Lamp Capital A.P.\"))。受托人通过援引方式将其在Lamp Capital A.P.中提交的起诉状（Adv. Proc. No. 23-5023, Docket No. 1）并入本文。\n\n受托人已对或将立即对GClub（G俱乐部）提起对抗程序；该对抗程序除其他事项外，请求作出确认GClub系债务人替身实体的宣告性判决。受托人通过援引方式将其在该对抗程序中提交的起诉状并入本文。\n\n4 法院已作出判决，认定Lamp Capital系债务人的替身实体。见Despins v. Lamp Capital LLC, et al. (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5023 (the \"Lamp Capital A.P.\"), Docket No. 66)。受托人通过援引方式将其在Lamp Capital A.P.中提交的起诉状（Adv. Proc. No. 23-5023, Docket No. 1）并入本文。\n\n法院已作出判决，认定Golden Spring（黄金之泉）系债务人的替身实体。见Despins v. Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）(Adv. Proc. No. 23-5018 (the \"Greenwich Land A.P.\"), Docket No. 35)。受托人通过援引方式将其在Greenwich Land A.P.中提交的起诉状（Adv. Proc. No. 23-5018, Docket No. 1）并入本文。\n\n在对抗程序Despins v. HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK科技公司）, et. al. (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5013 (the \"HCHK Entities A.P.\"), Docket No. 139)中，已对Lexington（列克星敦）作出缺席判决；该对抗程序除其他事项外，请求作出确认Lexington系债务人替身实体的宣告性判决。受托人通过援引方式将其在HCHK Entities A.P.中提交的起诉状（Adv. Proc. No. 23-5013, Docket No. 1）并入本文。\n\n5 该等对抗程序包括以下案件：(i) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司）, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003]；(ii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Greenwich Land LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005]；(iii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Mei Guo（梅果）[Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008]；(iv) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HCHK Technologies, Inc., et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013]；(v) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Taurus Fund LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017]；(vi) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Golden Spring (New York) Limited（黄金之泉（纽约）有限公司）[Adv. Proc. 23-05018]；以及(vii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Lamp Capital LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. 23-05023]。\n\n18. 这些诉讼中的事实模式始终包括：(i) 由近亲家庭成员和／或下属持有的、受债务人控制的空壳公司；(ii) 使用来自其他受债务人控制实体的现金购置的资产，和／或无对价转移至空壳实体以及在空壳实体之间转移的资产；以及(iii) 债务人从该等资产中受益，并对其拥有控制权和支配权。\nC. 债务人为阻碍、拖延和／或欺诈债权人所实施的行为\n\n19. 除受托人对抗程序中所处理的事项外，破产法院还认定，债务人是Ace Decade Limited（艾斯十年有限公司）的受益所有人（并通过该公司成为Dawn State Limited（曙光州有限公司）的受益所有人），且债务人控制并利用了Ace Decade Limited的名义股东Yvette Wang（王玉维）。6\n\n20. 破产法院还认定，“G Entities”（Gettr、G Fashion、G Music、GClubs、GNews和GEdu）、New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）以及Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会），连同其他表面上独立的实体和组织，均受债务人控制7、由债务人领导8，和／或“服务于……债务人的目的，并作为债务人的商业工具”。9\n\n21. 在申请日之前，United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）的Liman法官认定，Eastern Profit Corporation Limited（东方利润有限公司）——该实体在转让给作为债务人女儿的被告之前，最初由债务人的一名厨师持有——“实质上是”为债务人服务的空壳公司。10\n\n6 Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order, ¶¶ 1, 4 (Jan. 24, 2023, Docket No. 1372 (\"Corp. Governance Contempt Order\").\n\n7 Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ¶ 3 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, January 13, 2023 (\"The Debtor also controls Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡媒体集团） and a related entity 'GTV'\").\n\n8 同上，第¶ 7段（“债务人是The Whistleblower Movement（爆料革命）、NFSC、ROLF和Himalaya（喜马拉雅）的领导人。”）。\n\n9 同上（“The Whistleblower Movement、NFSC、ROLF、GSeries和Himalaya服务于债务人的目的，作为债务人的商业工具，并且其成员在个人上忠于债务人。”）。\n\n22. 债务人不遗余力地阻碍和拖延其最大债权人之一，即Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金，有限合伙企业）（“PAX”）的追偿工作。2017年，PAX在Supreme Court of the State of New York（纽约州最高法院）（“纽约法院”）以Index No. 652077/2017（“PAX案件”）起诉债务人，寻求就所欠款项取得判决。2021年2月3日，PAX从纽约法院取得针对债务人的判决，金额为$116,402,019.57（“PAX判决”）。PAX试图通过扣押债务人的资产来执行PAX判决——包括Lady May（梅女士号），债务人虚假声称该游艇归作为其女儿的被告所有；以及债务人位于曼哈顿的豪华公寓，债务人虚假声称该公寓以信托形式为债务人的儿子持有。债务人在判决后程序中违抗纽约法院命令，最终导致债务人被处以$134 million的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n23. 债务人还将其替身实体Lamp Capital、GClub、Golden Spring、Hudson Diamond和Lexington Property（列克星敦地产）作为个人小金库，用以资助其本人及家人已习惯的奢华生活方式，同时向其债权人隐瞒存于该等替身实体中的资产，并阻碍和拖延债权人就其债权获得清偿。债务人通过该等替身实体实施的转让延续了债务人的欺诈计划。\n\n10 Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC（战略愿景美国有限责任公司）, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) 2021 WL 2554631, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021).\n\n24. 债务人已在破产法院作证称，其资产不足以偿还其负债，且其奢华生活方式由其家庭通过由家庭成员名义持有的企业资助。11 债务人仅在资产清单中列示$3,850的资产。12\n\n25. 2023年3月，债务人被捕，并在等待就包括电信诈骗、证券欺诈和洗钱在内的联邦刑事指控受审期间持续被羁押。\n\n26. 美国政府在对债务人提出的刑事起诉书中主张，债务人及其共同被告“利用以至少80个不同实体或个人名义持有的约500多个账户，对逾$1 billion的欺诈所得进行洗钱。”13\n\n27. 债务人替身实体的财产，包括Lamp Capital、GClub、Golden Spring、Hudson Diamond和Lexington Property，在申请日之前的任何时候均为债务人的财产。\n\n28. 在与本文有关的所有时间内，债务人在纽约州纽约市开展业务，包括指示本起诉状所涉的申请前转让。\n\n11 Hearing on Debtor's Motion for Entry of Interim and Final DIP Orders (I) Authorizing the Debtor to Obtain Unsecured, Subordinated Postpetition Financing and (II) Scheduling Interim and Final Hearings, and (III) Granting Related Relief (Main Case, April 27, 2022)\n\n12 见脚注3\n\n13 见Memorandum of Law of the United States of America in Opposition to Defendant Yanping Wang（王艳萍）'s Motion for Pretrial Release at 29, attached as Exhibit B in the Reply of Chapter 11 Trustee to G Club Operations LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）'s Supplemental Objection to Trustee's Motion to Compel and Request for Related Relief (June 23, 2023, Main Case Docket No. 1934)。\nD. 债务人的空壳游戏和欺诈在申请后持续进行\n\n29. 截至申请日，债务人通过其替身实体持有的所有财产，包括Lamp Capital、GClub、Golden Spring、Hudson Diamond和Lexington Property，均成为第11章破产财产。见11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)。\n\n30. 申请日后，债务人公然藐视破产法院及其根据《破产法》所负的义务，继续通过众多替身空壳公司实施转让，包括但不限于Lamp Capital、GClub、Golden Spring、Hudson Diamond和Lexington Property。\n\n31. 该等申请后转让均未经破产法院授权，亦未根据《破产法》获得授权。\nE. 为阻碍、拖延或欺诈债权人而作出的转让\n\n32. 本起诉状所涉转让均意图阻碍、拖延和／或欺诈债务人的债权人，因为该等转让均通过债务人作为其空壳游戏一部分所运营的替身空壳公司作出。\n\n33. 债务人故意以此方式安排其财务事务，以便在向其众多债权人虚假声称贫困的同时，隐瞒并耗散数百万美元的资产。债务人声称自己一贫如洗，却同时大肆支出，以维持其本人、其家庭成员及其密切关联人的亿万富翁生活方式。\n\n34. 债务人隐瞒并耗散的资产包括其从其加密货币、证券及其他欺诈计划的受害人处获取的资金。由于该等行为，债务人在United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）待决的一宗刑事案件中，面临多项重罪欺诈、洗钱和敲诈勒索指控。见United States v. Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）, case no. 1:23-cr-00118-AT [ECF No. 215] (Jan. 3, 2024 S.D.N.Y.)。\n\n35. 债务人明知并意图通过以此方式隐瞒和耗散其资产，将不会有足够的剩余资产偿还其债权人——包括其众多欺诈行为的受害人。因此，该等转让必然是出于阻碍、拖延和／或欺诈债务人债权人的意图而作出。\n\n36. 被告属于内幕人。\n\n37. 被告协助债务人实施其空壳游戏，包括但不限于担任空壳公司的名义所有人；该等空壳公司是债务人的替身实体和／或由债务人受益所有（包括持有债务人游艇及债务人私人飞机所有权的公司）；以及阻挠债权人和受托人调查及追索债务人资产的努力。\n\n38. 被告从其参与债务人的空壳游戏中获益，包括但不限于取得本起诉状所涉转让，而债务人未就该等转让取得任何价值。\nF. 向被告作出的转让\n\n39. 在申请日之前，债务人通过其作为另一个自我的空壳公司，即 Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）、GClub（GClub）、Golden Spring（金泉）、Hudson Diamond（哈德逊钻石）和/或 Lexington Property（列克星敦地产），或以其他方式，向被告转让了债务人的财产（统称“申请前转让”），包括但不限于如下：\n\n见随附并构成本文件一部分的附表A。\n\n40. 在申请日之后，债务人通过其空壳公司 Lamp Capital、GClub、Golden Spring、Hudson Diamond 和/或 Lexington Property，或以其他方式，向被告转让了破产财产（统称“申请后转让”），包括但不限于如下：\n\n见随附并构成本文件一部分的附表B。\n\n41. 在进行申请前转让和申请后转让时（统称“该等转让”），债务人对债务人破产财产的债权人负有未清偿债务。\n\n42. 被告是该等转让的初始受让人。\n\n第一项请求\n\n（根据《破产法典》第548(a)(1)(A)条和第550(a)条请求撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让）\n\n43. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至42段所载的指控，如同在此全文列明。\n\n44. 申请前转让14由债务人通过其另一个自我 Lamp Capital、GClub、Golden Spring、Hudson Diamond 和/或 Lexington Property 作出，其实际意图是阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人。\n\n45. 债务人在实施申请前转让时阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的意图，尤其通过以下情形表明：\n\na. 申请前转让是通过作为另一个自我的空壳公司实施的；\n\nb. 申请前转让被向债务人的债权人隐瞒；\n\nc. 申请前转让是在债务人的家庭成员及其所控制的其他亲信和下属协助下，作为债务人的“空壳游戏”的一部分实施的，旨在隐瞒及保护资产；\n\n14 第一项请求和第三项请求适用于申请日前两年内发生的申请前转让。第二项请求和第四项请求适用于所有申请前转让。\n\nd. 申请前转让使债务人得以从其欺诈行为中获益，同时不使其财产受到其债权人的追索，从而推动了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 申请前转让使债务人得以从其欺诈行为中获利，同时不使其财产受到其债权人的追索，从而推动了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在申请前转让发生时，债务人正受到诉讼，包括 PAX（PAX）在 PAX 案件中对其提起的诉讼；以及\n\ng. 在申请前转让发生时，债务人已资不抵债或资本不足。\n\n46. 根据《破产法典》第548(a)(i)(A)条，受托人可撤销申请前转让；根据《破产法典》第550(a)条，该等转让可以追回。\n\n第二项请求\n\n（根据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 第273、274和276条以及《破产法典》第544(b)条和第550(a)条请求撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让）\n\n47. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至42段所载的指控，如同在此全文列明。\n\n48. 申请前转让由债务人通过其另一个自我 Lamp Capital、GClub、Golden Spring、Hudson Diamond 和/或 Lexington Property 作出，其实际意图是阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人。\n\n49. 债务人在实施申请前转让时阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的意图，尤其通过以下情形表明：\n\na. 申请前转让是通过作为另一个自我的空壳公司实施的；\n\nb. 申请前转让被向债务人的债权人隐瞒；\n\nc. 申请前转让是在债务人的家庭成员及其所控制的其他亲信和下属协助下，作为债务人的“空壳游戏”的一部分实施的，旨在隐瞒及保护资产；\n\nd. 申请前转让使债务人得以从其欺诈行为中获益，同时不使其财产受到其债权人的追索，从而推动了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 申请前转让使债务人得以从其欺诈行为中获利，同时不使其财产受到其债权人的追索，从而推动了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在申请前转让发生时，债务人正受到诉讼，包括 PAX 在 PAX 案件中对其提起的诉讼；以及\n\ng. 在申请前转让发生时，债务人已资不抵债或资本不足。\n\n50. 根据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 第273(a)(1)、274和276条以及《破产法典》第544(b)条，受托人可撤销申请前转让；根据《破产法典》第550(a)条，该等转让可以追回。\n\n第三项请求\n\n（根据《破产法典》第548(a)(1)(B)条和第550(a)条请求撤销并追回推定欺诈性转让）\n\n51. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至42段所载的指控，如同在此全文列明。\n\n52. 债务人就申请前转让取得的对价低于合理等值。\n\n53. 在申请前转让发生时，债务人已资不抵债，或者因申请前转让而变得资不抵债。\n\n54. 在申请前转让发生时，债务人正在从事一项业务或交易，或者即将从事一项业务或交易，而债务人所保留的任何财产均构成不合理地过少的资本。\n\n55. 在申请前转让发生时，债务人意图承担，或者相信其将承担在该等债务到期时超出其偿付能力的债务。\n\n56. 申请前转让构成欺诈性转让，根据《破产法典》第548(a)(1)(B)条，受托人可予撤销；根据《破产法典》第550(a)条，该等转让可以追回。\n\n第四项请求\n\n（根据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 第273(a)(2)、274和276条以及《破产法典》第544(b)条和第550(a)条请求撤销并追回推定欺诈性转让）\n\n57. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至42段所载的指控，如同在此全文列明。\n\n58. 债务人未就申请前转让取得合理等值的对价。\n\n59. 在申请前转让发生时，债务人已资不抵债，或者债务人因申请前转让而变得资不抵债。\n\n60. 在申请前转让发生时，债务人正在从事一项业务或交易，或者即将从事一项业务或交易，而债务人所保留的任何财产均构成不合理地过少的资本。\n\n61. 在申请前转让发生时，债务人意图承担，或者相信或理应相信其将承担在该等债务到期时超出其偿付能力的债务。\n\n62. 根据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 第273(a)(2)、274和276条以及《破产法典》第544(b)条，受托人可撤销申请前转让；根据《破产法典》第550(a)条，该等转让可以追回。\n\n第五项请求\n\n（根据《破产法典》第549条和第550(a)条请求撤销并追回未经授权的申请后转让）\n\n63. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至42段所载的指控，如同在此全文列明。\n\n64. 申请后转让由债务人向被告作出，包括通过其作为另一个自我的空壳公司 Lamp Capital、GClub、Golden Spring、Hudson Diamond 和/或 Lexington Property 作出。\n\n65. 申请后转让发生于申请日之后。\n\n66. 申请后转让未经破产法院或《破产法典》授权。\n\n67. 申请后转让构成对债务人第11章破产财产的未经授权转让。\n\n68. 根据《破产法典》第549(a)条，申请后转让可予撤销。\n\n69. 根据《破产法典》第550(a)条，受托人有权向被告追回申请后转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值，并追回截至付款日的利息及本案费用。\n\n救济请求\n\n因此，基于上述理由，受托人谨请求作出如下判决：\n\n1. 就第一项请求，作出命令，宣告根据《破产法典》第548(a)(1)(A)条撤销金额不少于$1,800,000.00的申请前转让；(b) 作出命令，责令撤销申请前转让；以及 (c) 根据《破产法典》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人破产财产之利益，向被告追回申请前转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n2. 就第二项请求，作出命令，宣告根据 N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law 第273(a)(1)、274和276条，以及就2020年4月4日之前的转让而言，根据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 第273、273a、275、276和278条，撤销金额不少于$1,800,000.00的申请前转让；(b) 作出命令，责令撤销申请前转让；以及 (c) 根据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 第276条及《破产法典》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人破产财产之利益，向被告追回申请前转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n3. 就第三项请求，(a) 作出命令，宣告根据《破产法典》第548(a)(1)(B)条撤销金额不少于$1,800,000.00的申请前转让；(b) 作出命令，责令撤销申请前转让；以及 (c) 根据《破产法典》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人破产财产之利益，向被告追回申请前转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n4. 就第四项请求，作出命令，宣告 (a) 根据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 第273(a)(2)、274和276条，以及就2020年4月4日之前的转让而言，根据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 第273、273a、275、276和278条，撤销金额不少于$1,800,000.00的申请前转让；(b) 作出命令，责令撤销申请前转让；以及 (c) 根据 N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law 第276条及《破产法典》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人破产财产之利益，向被告追回申请前转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n5. 就第五项请求，作出命令，(a) 宣告根据《破产法典》第549条撤销金额不少于$350,000.00的申请后转让；以及 (b) 作出命令，责令撤销申请后转让；以及 (c) 根据《破产法典》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人破产财产之利益，向被告追回申请后转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n6. 向受托人裁定自提交本起诉状之日起至本案判决之日止，按最高法定利率计算的判决前利息；以及\n\n7. 法院在该等情形下认为公正、适当或衡平的其他及进一步救济。\n\n［本页其余部分有意留白］\n\n日期：February 10, 2024 New Haven, CT\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（LUC A. DESPINS）第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\nDouglas S. Skalka（Douglas S. Skalka）（ct00616）\nPatrick R. Linsey（Patrick R. Linsey）（ct29437）\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n第11章受托人的代理律师\n\n附表A\n\n密封提交\n\n附表B\n\n密封提交","key_entities":["Despins","Je","Kwok","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","HCHK","Himalaya","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang","GTV","Saraca","GETTR","Paul Hastings","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":215,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":5917,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:31:41"}